In a follow up the the Citizen's United ruling giving corporations free reign to spend on elections a brief one page ruling has cemented that philosophy.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court cut off additional matching funds for three Arizona candidates who are participating in that state's public campaign finance system for the upcoming August 24 primary, thereby significantly benefiting a fourth candidate who has not accepted public financing.
Under Arizona's Clean Elections program, which was enacted in 1998 following a gambling-related bribery scandal, if one candidate in a state election decides to forego public funding in order to seek large private donations, the other candidates become entitled to additional matching funds. Several conservative candidates had challenged this system on the grounds that it "chilled" their freedom of speech by giving them a motivation to limit their own private spending.
This means that a fourth candidate, a wealthy businessman can outspend his opponents at will.
Read the editorial in the NY Times titled 'Keeping Politics Safe for the Rich'